It seems as if any president who thought of this idea, or had it
suggested to them, would do this under any circumstances, practically
speaking, That is. It's a publicity activity, wherein families who go
on trips to the national parks recall that individual who "protected"
them in a positive light. Unfortunately, forbidding the collection of
mineral specimens, and thereby upsetting those who might enjoy
collecting as a hobby, or practice it as a line of work, seems to
require little consideration as a "trade off". That is to say, the ire
drawn by the policy, the ideology as seen by these people can be
predicted to be of virtually no consequence with a great deal of
certainty; and I am not saying that this particular action should be
"of consequence", even if the action is wrong, incorrect, actually
bizarre if "traditional" or "accepted", but that one should think it's
a shame if there isn't more thought put into how land is protected by
the federal government, in what specific capacities, and to what
effect.
-Peter Richards
Received on Sat 13 Feb 2016 01:55:37 PM PST